The final shot of the film should have been

Law wrote:Just saw this, it was okay. DiCaprio more than likely won't even get a nomination. Hardy was as always the standout but Gleeson was an awesome character as well, great acting too. It's also a lock for best cinematography.

Have you been following the award's race? Every analyst believes he will be nominated. But I do agree, I kind of prefer Hardy in this film and can't believe he isn't getting any buzz for supporting actor.

Law wrote:

Allstar wrote:

Law wrote:Just saw this, it was okay. DiCaprio more than likely won't even get a nomination. Hardy was as always the standout but Gleeson was an awesome character as well, great acting too. It's also a lock for best cinematography.

Problem?

Yes, you're letting your personal opinion judge his award chances which is retarded. He has hit every major precursor, he has raves and now boxoffice seems likely. He's a bonafide lock for a nom and likely win. You're just butthurt he's getting more accolades than Hardy.

Allstar wrote: Yes, you're letting your personal opinion judge his award chances which is retarded. He has hit every major precursor, he has raves and now boxoffice seems likely. He's a bonafide lock for a nom and likely win. You're just butthurt he's getting more accolades than Hardy.

Because he crawled?

Saw this today. My thoughts:

The good:

Hardy disappearing into his character, as usual. While his character was vile, the viewer could understand his motivations, and truth be told many people would have behaved the same way in the same situation. I was particularly happy with The scenery. I'm not going to gush about the cinematography like everyone else. Yes, it's excellent and deserves a nomination, but really the landscape itself is what more so deserves accolades. I mean, who could screw up with that type of natural visuals to work with?

The bear The bad:

As a horse owner/trainer of many years, The length of some shots were waaaay too long. This seems to be a fad lately, and I'm not much into fads. Yes, yes, the scenery is beautiful, the wilderness dangerous and untamed. We get it, we get it. Not lingering so long on so many shots could have shortened the run time of the movie.

The run time. Act II was too long. (The pacing in Act I and II was just right.)

Too many repetitive . Another aspect where the film could have reduced run time without losing quality.

The soundtrack. Totally unengaging and virtually non-existent. I can't believe this has gotten the nominations it's gotten. Yes, I'm a soundtrack snob. As I said earlier in this thread, a soundtrack should enhance the experience. This one did nothing to accomplish that.

The rest:

And, finally, Leo: Yes, he did an excellent job, considering the hardship of the elements, but acting-wise, character-wise, this is not his best. Does he deserve an Oscar nomination? Probably. Does he deserve to win? Not in my opinion.

Character-wise, I found Fitzgerald much more interesting and three-dimensional than Glass.

Overall rating: 7.5/10

Baniac wrote:Saw this today. My thoughts:

The good:

Hardy disappearing into his character, as usual. While his character was vile, the viewer could understand his motivations, and truth be told many people would have behaved the same way in the same situation. I was particularly happy with

the way his character was portrayed at the end in the final fight scene. So many revenge movies have the bad guy collapse into a trembling ball of cowardice, blubbering and pleading for his life. Fitz retained his snark and insults until the very end. I knew Glass wouldn't kill him once we saw the earlier scene with the Indian saying how revenge should be left to the Creator. A bit heavy-handed foreshadowing but probably necessary for the ending to be believed.

The scenery. I'm not going to gush about the cinematography like everyone else. Yes, it's excellent and deserves a nomination, but really the landscape itself is what more so deserves accolades. I mean, who could screw up with that type of natural visuals to work with?

The bear

attack. Very well done. My only complaint is the dead bear rolling onto him. That turned a very sobering scene into one that was inappropriately comedic and awkward.

The bad:

As a horse owner/trainer of many years,

the use of fake horses in a couple of shots (one with Dicaprio running from the Indians and the other a close-up shot of Hardy riding toward the fort) was jarring and annoying. I mean, seriously, with a budget like that, they couldn't do better? Ugh. I can almost understand a fake horse for the appaloosa running for the cliff because Leo's liability probably doesn't allow such a thing as Leo galloping wildly across a treacherous landscape where a real horse could easily trip, but the close up of Hardy, especially after the previous shot shows him riding the real deal. Makes no sense.

The length of some shots were waaaay too long. This seems to be a fad lately, and I'm not much into fads. Yes, yes, the scenery is beautiful, the wilderness dangerous and untamed. We get it, we get it. Not lingering so long on so many shots could have shortened the run time of the movie.

The run time. Act II was too long. (The pacing in Act I and II was just right.)

Too many repetitive

dream sequences

. Another aspect where the film could have reduced run time without losing quality.

The soundtrack. Totally unengaging and virtually non-existent. I can't believe this has gotten the nominations it's gotten. Yes, I'm a soundtrack snob. As I said earlier in this thread, a soundtrack should enhance the experience. This one did nothing to accomplish that.

The rest:

And, finally, Leo: Yes, he did an excellent job, considering the hardship of the elements, but acting-wise, character-wise, this is not his best. Does he deserve an Oscar nomination? Probably. Does he deserve to win? Not in my opinion.

Character-wise, I found Fitzgerald much more interesting and three-dimensional than Glass.

Overall rating: 7.5/10

A very thorough review and I agree with most points made although I would give it a slightly higher rating. Glad to see I'm not the only one with just as much if not more praise for Hardy than the rest.

This is probably the best movie I don't ever want to see again

Visually, it is glorious, one of the best (if not THE best) looking films I've ever watched on the big screen. I also really dug the use of long takes in this. In Birdman, I thought it was distracting a lot of times, it was used at the right moments here. 6-7 scenes are just out of this world. The use of closeups is also glorious. To me Inarritu and Luzebzki should be locks for wins in Direction and Cinematography. The brutality and the realism gave such an edge to this film. We feel we are with these trappers throughout. So what's my problem?

It's too long. This could have worked better with a 2-hour runtime. I was delighted because I was experiencing it, but there's simply not enough story to justify it. And it's such a downer, me and my friends were all silent for minutes at the end. Also agree about the lame soundtrack.

Actors are all solid. Hardy, Gleeson and especially Poulter give great supporting performances. Leo gives it all in the role, it's an impressive commitment, but like the film in general, I admired it more than I love it. It wouldn't be in my top 5 of his career. But fuck it give him the Oscar for all the previous snubs and it's not like there's a can't-miss-winner in lead this year.

8.5/10

Inarritu rankings
Amores Perros
Birdman
Babel
21 Grams
The Revenant
Biutiful

Now Where Was I ? wrote:it's such a downer, me and my friends were all silent for minutes at the end.

Yeah, the theater was really quiet at my showing, too. (Big crowd for a morning showing, which I was happy to see. Nice to know some folks are still interested in more than Marvel movies and so-called comedies.)

Like you, it's not something I'll watch again. Usually I buy Hardy's movies once they come out on Blu-ray, but with this one he is the ONLY reason why I would buy this, so I'm not sure I'll be adding this one to my collection.

This was really underwhelming. Also made me dislike Innaritu even more and I say that as a huge fan of Birdman.

DiCaprio was fine, but, Jesus. Career best? Not even close. Hardy was very good though and of course Chivo is the MVP here.

I just wasn't at all gripped by it for much of the run time. Thirty minutes could've been cut from the film and I wouldn't have cared. If you wanna see an over indulgent period western in theaters, definitely go with The Hateful Eight. Didn't feel the runtime nearly as much with that film as I did with this.

Saw this for the second time tonight. Was in love with it yesterday, now I'm even more in love with it. Can't believe it. Film of the year.